MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976296020 · doi:10.1139/b05-105

The relationship between stem-galling wasps and mycorrhizal colonization of <i>Quercus turbinella</i>

2005· article· en· W1976296020 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rebecca Mueller, Christopher M. Sthultz, Theodore Martinez, Catherine A. Gehring, Thomas G. Whitham

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsColonizationBiologyShrubFagaceaeHerbivoreBotanyColonisationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While numerous studies have examined the relationship between herbivory and mycorrhizal colonization, few studies have been undertaken on plant species such as oaks that can be dually colonized by both arbuscular mycorrhizas (AM) and ectomycorrhizas (EM). We examined the relationship between insect herbivory by a stem-galling wasp (Cynipidae) and the mycorrhizal colonization of shrub live oaks ( Quercus turbinella Greene). We found that oaks with high numbers of galls had 2.4 times higher levels of branch die-back and were 2.3 times more water stressed than oaks with low numbers of galls. Oaks with high numbers of galls supported 21% higher levels of AM colonization but had 53% lower levels of EM colonization than oaks with low numbers of galls. In addition, AM colonization was positively correlated with the number of galls per tree, while EM colonization was negatively correlated with the number of galls per tree. These findings suggest that there is a dynamic relationship between stem-galling wasps and the AM and EM mutualists of shrub live oak.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207